Celebrity Cabinet

Sky News has released the results of their poll today on which celebrities you’d like to see in the Cabinet. Surprisingly, Sir David Attenborough topped the list as Prime Minister, with Jamie Oliver nestling in as Health Secretary. 2,226 responded, and the winners are:

Prime Minister: Sir David Attenborough

Chancellor: Carol Vorderman

Foreign Secretary: Sir Michael Palin

Justice Secretary: Robbie Coltrane

Home Secretary: Judge John Deed (Martin Shaw)

Defence Secretary: Andy McNab (ex-SAS/novelist)

Scotland Secretary: Billy Connolly

Health Secretary: Jamie Oliver

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Nigella Lawson

Department of Trade and Industry: Sir Alan Sugar

Minister for Women: Jo Brand

Work and Pensions Minister: Victor Meldrew (Richard Wilson)

Wales Secretary: Catherine Zeta-Jones

Secretary of State for Transport: Jeremy Clarkson

Communities Secretary: Sir Bob Geldof

Chief Whip: Simon Cowell

Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families: Supernanny (Jo Frost)

Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport: Steve Redgrave

Northern Ireland Secretary: Eamonn Holmes

Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills: Prof. Stephen Hawking

What do you think? Jeremy Clarkson for PM? Maragaret Thatcher for Pensions? Or how about Rob Brydon representing the Welsh? Let us know by leaving a comment.

Matthew Jones
Deputy Chairman (Political), NKCF

Staffordshire University Caves To Conservative Pressure

Staffordshire University has conceded to calls from Conservative Future to open up the University to democratic activity and allow political parties onto the university campus.

Conservative Future will be on the University campus in Stafford on 11th February, and Stoke-on-Trent campus on 12th February, promoting the Conservative Party and youth politics, as well as inviting students to join the Party.

This is a really welcome decision, and thankfully the Students Union have agreed to hold the 'Who's Speaking For You?' event in February (originally promised for the first semester) after much pressure from CF over the past 6 months, and extensive press coverage. However, it is very disappointing that it has taken this long for the University and Students Union to understand the importance of political freedom and democracy to Staffordshire students.

There is however disappointing news from the University that accompanies this success. In a written statement from the Students Union they state "We ask that you bear in mind that this invitation onto campus is to attend the fair and Question Time events and that canvassing on areas of the campus outside these events is not permitted."

This is extremely disappointing. Although we have made a breakthrough, Staffordshire University Students Union, presumably supported by the University, is still banning legitimate political activity and freedom on the campus. A campus where many students are resident, and therefore entitled to vote. Restricting political activity at all times except these two days is still unacceptable, and CF will continue to push for complete political freedom in Staffordshire University.

Owen Meredith
Area Chairman for Staffordshire CF
Social Secretary, NKCF

Christmas Comes Early...

It's very early on a Sunday morning only one week before Christmas. I'm hearing word through the blogs that an truly staggering poll will be revealed later today. YouGov's research for the Sunday Times should reveal a Conservative lead of a massive 13 points. The Liberal Democrat lead isn't yet around (from what I can see), but topline voting intentions for the main two parties are LAB-CON-32%-45%.

What does this bring up?

• We've made significant progress since the previously concerning/static 40% mark was reported. No more worrying?
• We have made no major announcements but have gained. The main thing? Europe.

Are we about to see the Lisbon Treaty's impact on the Labour Party? Could a Conservative announcement regarding a retrospective referendum boost our ratings even further?

The highest Conservative rating ever recorded by YouGov. What a Christmas present for Conservatives across the country!


Matthew Jones
Deputy Chairman (Political), NKCF

Treaty Trouble

Today Gordon Brown stood in front of the liaison committee and answered questions for one and a half hours from chairmen of the various committees. Meanwhile in Lisbon 26 other leaders from around the European Union were signing the ‘Lisbon Treaty’ or the ‘amending treaty.’ Number 10 diary planners are supposedly the best and have known abut the ‘clash’ for some time now. Have the dairy planners lost there touch or is Gordon Brown just shying away from signing an unpopular treaty?

Is he is shying away? Or is he showing a preference for parliamentary accountability verses signing an unpopular treaty? It is not a hard choice for a man who likes to claim to be more accountable, more of a parliamentarian sort of guy. It’s a shame it’s the wrong decision. He should have rearranged the liaison committee and signed the treaty in full view of the world’s media. Problem is…he is a coward.


Daniel Worley
Secretary, NKCF

The Mysterious Others

Britain, Britain, Britain.

This week’s polling results from Populus make for interesting reading if you’re interested in politics. Whether you’re red or blue, the poll makes for – to put it diplomatically – positive and not-so-positive reading. Peter Riddell summed it up rather nicely in The Times the other day, saying that despite there being a pivotal group being dis-satisfied with Labour, the Conservatives have only improved their position marginally on certain key policy areas. For information, the top-line voting intentions are CON-LAB-LIB-OTH 40%-32%-16%-11%.

But the real issue that I want to look at here is the concept of a two-party state. Are we such a state? We are often compared to America in that we have Labour and the Conservatives, and they have the Republicans and Democrats. There are factions on the other side of the Atlantic, of course there are, but in contrast our ‘factions’ divide from the main party and set up their own. See George Galloway. Election results show that the Liberal Party (in one form or another) has not been the Official Opposition in the House of Commons since 1922 – 85 years! We have to go back 101 years to find the last non-Conservative or Liberal opposition. Even then, it was Joseph Chamberlain who led a separate ‘Unionist’ group after a dispute over tariff reform. Essentially, yes, you guessed it, Conservative.

The results of the polls are interesting. The Conservatives are generally in the 40% - 42% region, with Labour gaining percentages of between 27% - 32%. This shows that while the opposition are consolidating their position around the 40% mark, the general public’s view of the government is fluctuating and their poll ratings remain considerably volatile. This has led to commentators to speculate on whether or not a coalition government could be a realistic outcome from the next general election.

With two or maybe even three years to go, there is still plenty of time for the smaller parties to make up some ground. In October, only 7% of people claimed to want to vote for a party that was not Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. Now, only two months later, 11% of people will vote for a smaller party. I’m no mathematician, but why? It took David Cameron over two months (from August to early November) and an abundance of bad handling on the government’s part to gain 4%. What do the other parties have to offer?

The Green Party

The phrase “the law of unintended consequences” comes to mind here. So much emphasis is being placed upon the concept of living in a ‘greener’ country, with a lot of resources being pumped into encouraging recycling. Are the main parties actually doing better than they think in encouraging ‘greener thinking’ by causing a shift in support to the Green Party?

UK Independence Party

So much talk about Europe and the advantages of being a member of the European Union could be turning people off the two main parties. UKIP “is committed to withdrawing Britain from the European Union” because it believes that it is “bad for Britain's economy and prosperity, but it is an alien system of government that will ultimately prove to be totally unacceptable to the British people”. The President of France, Nicholas Sarkozy, believes that a referendum in the UK would result in one in France. He says that if the treaty were put to the people of France and Britain, then the treaty would fall. Are UKIP on to something here?

Respect

In their latest policy booklet dated April 2006, Respect say that “A vote for Respect is a crucial step towards the creation of a new radical working-class voice that will speak for millions who, through the betrayals of New Labour, have lost their political representation”. If the Blair-Brown coalition really has improved the economic welfare of our country and, in general, made people richer, will people be voting for this party?

British National Party

Always keen to stir up controversy, the BNP stand for lower immigration, British independence and higher-quality education and healthcare. Are the British people really that unhappy with the levels of immigration at present? Have the BNP already ruined their chances of electoral success by allowing themselves to be portrayed as a radical party? After all, if people want British independence and different policies on education, aren’t there already UKIP and the Conservatives?

What can be said in conclusion? I don’t think that there is any definitive answer. Clearly some like UKIP are trying to approach things in a different way, but the fact of the matter remains that at least another fifty years is needed before a credible alternative to the main three parties can possibly be a viable idea.

Matthew Jones
Deputy Chairman (Political), NKCF

Stronger Together

I was absolutely delighted to read David Cameron’s speech “Stronger Together,” which touched on a very important topic for me personally…the state of the Union between Scotland and England.

Although we may be the ‘Conservative and Unionist’ party officially we never seem to use the ‘Unionist’ part for campaign literature, posters and the party website, if indeed it was ever at all used in England. But David Cameron made a clear and positive commitment to the UNITED Kingdom and to the people in Scotland, and it is the Tory party which are trying to tidy up the constitutional mess Labour has left the Union in. Cameron went well beyond Gordon Browns half hearted and ridiculous attempts to create a false British sense of identity and appeal to English voters and actually challenged the SNP and their separatist agenda.

It is true to say that in the media and on the World Wide Web that talk about breaking up the Union, the reasons for it the and ramifications of such a separation, has been more frequent and the likelihood of the topic going away soon is unlikely with the Scottish Nationalist in power at Edinburgh. No doubt I will be generalising a little but to me their seems to be some very clear reasons why this debate is now more heated than ever before, and should not simply be treated a ‘just talk.’ Indeed, without wanting to sound too overdramatic, the Union is perhaps at its most vulnerable today than it has been in a long, long time.

It appears due to Labours mishandling of devolution and its consequences, sloppy Labour government and its apparent lack of interest in addressing the clear and blatant unfairness in the fact that Scottish MPs can vote on English laws but not vice-versa has not helped sure up and strengthen the Union. Giving the Scottish people more say over their affairs was a positive thing, it can only be good for democracy, but the ramifications of this on the rest of the Union were not thought out.

But it is not all Labours fault, the Tories awful treatment of the Scottish nation during the 1980s made us so totally unelectable north of the boarder than when Scots were sick to death of Labour in May 2007 they couldn’t turn to us as a viable alternative, and instead voted in the SNP with its nationalist and bad Mel Gibson movie rhetoric (I know, so many bad movies to choose from…)

This has all meant some right of centre elements in the English press having a bee in their bonnets about the West Lothian question and this idea that Scotland takes money from England giving little in return, and Nationalist now have the highest political platform in Scotland.

Most commentators seem to agree that Scotland did not vote SNP because they truly wanted independence; it was more than likely a protest vote against Labour and a signal of disillusionment with the main three parties. This is only partly assuring for those who believe in the Union. The SNP was a party which exclusively spoke to the Scottish people and was only concerned with the Scottish people and their needs and concerns. Also the SNP message that England was effectively robbing the Scots wealth by stealing ‘their oil’ and therefore denying each Scottish family their own villa in the South of France and a golden toilet…or something like that…is a powerful one. There is a certain justification for Scottish resentment over these issues; but equally the English, specifically English students, can be resentful at having to pay top up fees, a bill passed at Westminster because Scottish MPs voted on the bill even though it did not affect any of their constituents.

Amongst all this, who has been defending the Union? Sure Blair and Brown would speak up for the Union when questioned in PMQs and other places, but what have any done to protect the Union form unnecessary, avoidable and as Cameron put it: “coarse and casual nationalism” in both Scotland and England.

David Cameron in his speech set out a strong message in support of the Union, better than any speech Gordon Brown has given about ‘what it means to be British.’

“We must confront and defeat the ugly stain of separatism seeping through the Union flag.”

He spoke of how the home nations of Britain united are so much more than the sum of their parts and Great Britain can punch above its weight on the international stage because of that. Therefore Britain can make the world and itself a safer place to live. He spoke of how London is overtaking taking New York as a “global powerhouse” and how Edinburgh historically has been and is a hugely important financial centre…so that indeed together England and Scotland can be even richer and more prosperous.

His attack on Gordon Browns meek attempt at restoring national British pride was also spot on. Focus groups to discuss what it means to be British, a ‘British Day,’ a competition for a motto for Britain are pathetic attempts to address this lack of British identity, like painting over cracks in a wall. The solution is not to get people thinking that they are ‘British,’ it is to get English and Scots proud that they are part of a United Kingdom, and that both nations are treated fairly within it. The current situation can not go on, and Labour silence on the issues is alarming and down right disgraceful.

Cameron has said this issues need to be addressed, although he was light on the specifics and details of how this would be achieved, at least he has shown interest in them. Labour’s response that “we gave the people of England a chance for regional assemblies and they rejected them” is not a valid response to this constitutional inequality. The people of England wanted less bureaucracy and not another level of government, the Labour government need to respect that decision, just like they respected Scotland desire for a Parliament. Did the government not have any back up plan if England did not want to play the devolution game? Of course not, like so many things, Labour simply did not think of the long term problems.

So I was proud to see our Party leader clearly show his commitment to the United Kingdom, an appalling contrast to the actual Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. So maybe we should put the word ‘Unionist’ back into the used party name? I for one would welcome it.

“So I say to Alex Salmond…We will not play your game to break up our United Kingdom. And we will not stop fighting to meet Scotland's needs.”

Cameron’s speech can be found here:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=141137&speeches=1

Joseph Kiernan
Executive Chairman, NKCF

By any other Logo it would Smell as Sweet...

How attached are we to logos? You will know doubt recall the storm in a tea cup over the transformation of the Conservative party logo, swapping a forearm holding a blazing blue torch for an arty, modern, green tree. Many at the time would have liked for the tree to be torched, but most have now come to terms with the new identity, the tree 'grew' on them if you will. But at the time there was a sense of outrage among some in the party who felt this re-branding exercise undertaken by David Cameron threatened to dilute the core beliefs and message of the party, and that the party logo had been needlessly changed to promote the new green politics Cameron was focusing on. As unfounded as those accusations may or may not be; it illustrates that changing the symbol of an organisation can provoke a relatively passionate response. No doubt when the Labour party eventually changes it logo from a red rose to Gordon Browns fist or perhaps even a compact disc with a big question mark embellished over it…there will be a certain level of discontent.

However the proposal to change the logo of the Students Union here at Keele did not cause too much shaking of heads and sighs at the Student Representative Council two weeks ago. It’s hard to become attached to an organisations logo when that organisation hardly every uses it. It’s quite possible today to walk around and in the Union have no idea of what the KUSU logo is. Another reason for not many students having any attachment to the KUSU emblem is because, while a blazing torch represented liberty, a weird green and black diamond shaped knot is slightly more cryptic…maybe if it was a purple shaped pint glass, students would have more affection for it and be more clear as to what it stood for.

So when a motion was brought forward suggesting the logo is reviewed and changed, I personally was very welcoming. Redesigning the logo could potentially be a momentous and exciting event involving the entire student body. Concourse and KUBE Radio could publicise a campus wide competition, where students design logos which they feel symbolise their Union. Obviously you would get some entries that overemphasise the drinking element of the union, which is perhaps sadly the only thing KUSU is for some students: a 'watering hole.' As important as the social aspect of KUSU is perhaps there would be entries which illustrate the inclusiveness, political and activist sides to the Union as well as the drinking/social part. And it is in entries such as these that perhaps a logo could be found in which every student could look at and identify their Union experience within it.

Unfortunately on Tuesday 4^th December the SRC was told that KUSU marketing is already commissioning a major research project, including questionnaires and focus groups, the result of which will be three different concepts for a new logo, which the student body will have a chance to vote on at a Union General Meeting towards the end of this academic year. The estimated cost of this process, and presumably the implementation of any new logo, is expected to be a figure no more that £1000.

Although students will be asked to take part in the research if they so wish, I must say that it is a shame that a campus wide competition was not considered by those in the Union. Ultimately it would be cheaper to have a logo design in house, the publicity costs and adverts on KUBE Radio would be minimal, and surely out of our entire student populace there is someone with enough talent to professionally design a new logo?

Whether this signals KUSU marketing not having any faith in the student body, or whether it genuinely feels this is the best course for a logo redesign, I would argue that a great opportunity to get the whole campus pepped up and involved in a competition and perhaps take some interest in their Union was been missed. If the Union truly does belong to the Students, then the entire process of how the Union is symbolised and presents itself should be in their hands, and their hands alone.

Joseph Kiernan
Executive Chairman, NKCF

Alpha

Hello to you all and welcome to NKCF’s new blog.

For those of you do not know what NKCF is, it is the Conservative Future branch (that’s Conservative Party members under 30 years old) for the town of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Keele University. For those of you who know us or are members, I hope you’ll enjoy reading and participating in this blog

The purpose of this blog is to provide a point of access for all our members (and also non-members) to the society, where they can take part in different topical/society discussions and ask us questions using the posting comments feature, and also stay up to date with what the society is doing on campus and around town.

We will also be posting the time, place and agenda for our meetings so everyone can come along, as well as the details for our social events, where you’ll be able to let us know how you think they went and maybe suggest some improvements.

If you’re a member of NKCF and you want to write an opinion piece about a current event or news story for this blog, then email it to us at the email address provided and we’ll post it up here for everyone to read.

Ultimately this blog is to share ideas and hopefully it will become a thriving online community.

Best Wishes and Happy Blogging,

Joseph Kiernan
Executive Chairman, NKCF